Zhou v. Lowe's Home Ctrs.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-370 (RDA/IDD) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | HUAN ZHOU, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant. |
This matter comes before the Court on a Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC ("Defendant" or "Lowe's") in this Family and Medical Leave Act employment discrimination case (Dkt. 38); Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Second Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 48); and Plaintiff Huan Zhou's ("Plaintiff" or "Zhou") Motion to File out of Time (Dkt. 51). The Court dispenses with oral argument as it would not aid in the decisional process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). These matters have been fully briefed and are now ripe for disposition.
Considering Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 38), Defendant's Memorandum in Support (Dkt. 38-1), Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition (Dkt. 43), and Defendant's Reply (Dkt. 59), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Considering Defendant's Motion to Strike (Dkt. 48), Memorandum in Support (Dkt. 49), Plaintiff's Opposition (Dkt. 55), and Defendant's Reply (Dkt. 60), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Considering Plaintiff's Motion to File Out of Time (Dkt. 51), Memorandum in Support (Dkt. 53), Defendant's Opposition (Dkt. 54), and Plaintiff's Reply (Dkt. 58), it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. For the reasons that follow, judgment will be entered against Plaintiff because she has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
Although the parties dispute certain facts, the following facts are either undisputed or considered in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 651 (2014) (); see also Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 38-1); Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 43); Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts (Dkt. 43).
Plaintiff Huan Zhou was employed by Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC as a Customer Service Associate from September of 2007 until her termination on October 19, 2018. Dkt. 38-1, ¶¶ 1-2. During her eleven years of employment with Lowe's, Zhou received several awards from the company. Dkt. Nos. 3; 43, ¶ 1.
Zhou's mother was diagnosed with endometrial cancer in May of 2018 and began treatment with Dr. Linda Duska in June of 2018. Dkt. 38-1, ¶ 7. The cancer required multiple procedures, which Zhou's mother continued until she died. Dkt. Nos. 38-6; 38-7; 38-8. Zhou's mother began chemotherapy treatments on August 6, 2018, which recurred every three weeks. See Dkt. Nos. 43, 5; 38-7. In January of 2017, Zhou asked to step down from her management position at Lowe's to spend more time caring for her mother, a request Lowe's granted. Dkt. 38-1, ¶ 1. Although she later attempted to quit her job altogether in the Spring of 2018, she agreed to remain at Lowe's after negotiating with her manager, Evelyn Cobbinah. Dkt. 43, 6; see also Dkt. 38-3. Dr. Duskarecommended Zhou take leave to care for her mother; the parties disagree, however, as to how long the doctor recommended Zhou should take leave. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶ 12 (citing Dkt. 38-7); 43, 5. On June 15, 2018, Zhou requested time off for her mother's surgery. Dkt. 38-1, ¶ 8. Zhou's assistant managers directed her to Reed Group, a third-party administrator handling FMLA leave requests on behalf of Lowe's. Dkt. 38-1, ¶ 8 (citing Dkt. 38-11).
The parties generally agree that Lowe's relies on Reed Group and Sedgwick, third-party administrators, to process FMLA requests, but they disagree as to whether Zhou knew the details of the FMLA process at the time of her employment. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶ 5 (citing Dkt. 38-3); 43, 4. The parties agree that Zhou took FMLA leave three times for pregnancies—in 2011, 2013, and 2016—but disagree as to whether Zhou knew how to request FMLA leave to care for a family member. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶ 3 (citing Dkt. 38-3); 43, 3.
Zhou filed another request for FMLA leave on June 18, 2018, which Reed Group denied on July 30, 2018, in a memo addressed to Zhou stating the cause for denial was "insufficient certification." Dkt. 59-2. Lowe's instead granted Zhou unpaid personal leave from July 5 through July 11, 2018. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, 9; 43, 6. Sedgwick also processed Zhou's application for FMLA leave, which explained that she needed to care for her sick mother. Dkt. 38-14. According to the FMLA policy that Lowe's follows, caring for a family member with a serious health condition is a legitimate reason for granting FMLA leave, which may be taken intermittently. Dkt. 38-1, ¶ 10 (citing Dkt. 38-14, ¶ 8). On October 15, 2018, Zhou submitted a new FMLA leave request to Sedgwick. Dkt. 38-1, ¶ 35.
The parties agree that in October of 2018, a Lowe's store manager, Alex Quiroz, conducted an audit in Kronos, Lowe's' timekeeping system, which revealed that Zhou's start time was altered on 33 different occasions between July and October of 2018. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶¶ 15, 18 (citing Dkt. 38-11); 43, 6. The Lowe's Employee Standards of Conduct Policy states that employees are never to falsify or disguise the true nature of any company record. Dkt. Nos. 38-13; 43, 6. The parties generally agree that the Standards of Conduct Policy also explains that changing an employee's start time after the fact is a falsification of company records. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶ 17 (citing Dkt. 38-13, ¶ 5); 43, 6-7. The parties disagree on whether these changes were made to Zhou's timecard before or after she arrived for work on those days. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶ 17 (citing Dkt. 38-13, ¶ 5); 43, 6-7.1 According to the Corrective Action Reports maintained by Lowe's, which detail official company policy on violations, falsification of company documents is a Class A violation and could result in termination. Dkt. 38-13.
After concluding the audit, Lowe's investigated Zhou and her managers, Evelyn Cobbinah, Angela Hubbard, Nana Alabi, and Derick Nerquaye Tetteh, regarding the change in Zhou's start times. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶ 22 (citing Dkt. 38-11). The investigation found that the four managers agreed to changing Zhou's start times at Zhou's request, which she made based on her obligations to care for her sick mother. Dkt. 38-1, ¶ 23 (citing Dkt. 38-13, ¶ 7).
The parties generally agree that Zhou admitted, in a signed written statement, that her times were changed because of the difficulties she experienced in caring for her sick mother. Dkt. Nos.38-1, ¶ 24 (citing Dkt. 38-3,); 43, 7. Even so, they disagree over the circumstances surrounding that statement. Id. Zhou applied for FMLA leave again on October 15, 2018, prior to her termination, citing her desire to care for her sick mother. Dkt. Nos. 38-1 ¶ 35; 43, 10. On October 18, 2018, Zhou filed a discrimination complaint with Lowe's' grievance department, Ethics Point, based on the investigation into the timecard alterations. See Dkt. 38-1, 21. After Lowe's concluded its investigation, Zhou was terminated from her position at the store for falsification of company records. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶ 39, 19; 43, 11. In all, Lowe's fired ten employees from the Alexandria store for falsifying time records after the fact, including the four assistant managers involved in distorting Plaintiff's timecards. Dkt. Nos. 38-1, ¶ 38 (citing Dkt. 38-10); 38-13, ¶ 10; 38-11.
On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court asserting claims of FMLA interference and retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2), which prohibits discrimination against an employee who exercises substantive rights the FMLA confers. Dkt. 1. At the March 19, 2021 Final Pretrial Conference, this Court set a May 4, 2021 deadline for any summary judgment motions. Dkt. 36.
On May 4, 2021, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. 38-1. Defendant argues for summary judgment on Plaintiff's FMLA retaliation and interference claims because (1) Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation; (2) Defendant did not interfere with Plaintiff's FMLA request; and (3) Defendant provided Plaintiff with timely notice of her rights. Dkt. 38-1, 19, 26, 29. Plaintiff argues that she has established a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation and that she can succeed on her claim of FMLA interference. Dkt. 43.
Then, on May 18, 2021—the deadline for responding to Defendant's summary judgment motion—Plaintiff moved for a three-day extension of time to file her Opposition to Defendant's motion. Dkt. 40. Over Defendant's objection, Magistrate Judge Davis granted Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time. Dkt. 42. On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff opposed Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion without submitting any attached exhibits. Dkt. 43. Three days later, she filed a second Opposition brief, with 43 exhibits attached. Dkt. 44. Plaintiff's counsel has characterized this second brief as a "corrected Memorandum in Opposition." Dkt. 51.
On May 27, 2021, Defendant submitted a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Second Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 48. Plaintiff opposes this Motion to Strike. See Dkt. 51. In addition, she has also filed a Motion to File Out of Time as to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, where she asks the Court to deem her second Opposition brief—submitted outside of the three-day extension Plaintiff requested and received—as timely filed. Dkt. 51.
Under Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a "court may, for good cause, extend the time" by which "an act may or must be done." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Rule 6(b) also provides that "after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial